The Shroud of Turin

[outhouse]

Smells like POE

Looks like POE

 

[McBell]

Correct there was a slight error in wording, but you know what I mean about the wording and deep inside your heart you know what I'm talking about with the shroud. Maybe you also have a relative named fredicus also that you can share with us since ambiguous couldn't bring anything good to the table against the shroud.

I can't for the life of me understand why any atheist would even go near the shroud . Look at how it exposed them for what they truly are. Dogmatic atheistic religious believers who have been reduces to ignoring the evidence and denying, dodging and rediculing it.

Maybe one day when your more open minded and rational you will be able to address the points I made. Right now your case of outhouseitis looks like its in full bloom.

Until then , just stay away from the shroud if it makes you uncomfortable, no reason to have doubts about your atheism since it is obvious that you are sogmatically married to it to the point where you have thrown rationality and sound argumentation out the door.

Good day gentlemen , and you too outhouse

So now you are just gonna lash out at everyone?

For all your talk of honest, truth, rationality, etc. you have surely demonstrated that you are just as big an offender as those you whine about.
And all the while claiming the higher ground.

 

[McBell]

Mestemia, great one line answer that is backed up with no evidence against the shroud whatsoever. The analytical mind if the new atheist at work.
Thank God Antony flew was an honest atheist. Maybe that's why he converted away from atheism. He was an honest man and a very reasonable man, you should try that approach sometime my friend.

You should probably rework your sermons.
They sound a bit to rehearsed.

Interestingly enough, all you have done is list a bunch of opinions that agree with you.

If that was enough then Outhouse would have you tied.

problem is that merely listing people who agree with you doe snot prove anything other than people agree with you.

Now the fact of the matter is that it is on you to provide evidence that the shroud is of Jesus.
You have not done so.

Perhaps if you were to spend a tenth of the time you use to toss out ad hominems into actually evidencing your case....

Now before you run off into left field again on another one of your temper tantrums, please bear in mind that I do not give a crickets fart one way or the other.
Either it is Jesus or it is not Jesus.
I have no dog in the fight.
Regardless of how much you so desperately need me to.

 

[bippy123]

Ok here is another excellent video on the shroud from 2008. Packed with lots of good info on the shroud including how outhouse posted debunked information saying the the shroud couldn't be wrapped around a human body which physicist john Jackson demonstrates how it could easily be wrapped around a human body by having a an exact size replica wrap around a life sized plaster or plastic body .

Jackson is one if the experts of the scientific characteristics Of the shroud image and why it has fascinated scientists from all over the world since 1898.

This video is a great speed course on learning about the shroud image.
Enjoy

The Shroud of Turin - YouTube

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

Awesome steel toes , sounds like you followed the evidence to a reasonable conclusion.
God bless

I don't mean to alarm you, but there is a chance that you've been exposed to a massive dose of sarcasm.

If Steeltoes had been sending out radiation instead of sarcasm, you'd need like a five-gallon bucket of iodine right now.

 

[philbo]

Congrats Phil. You have shown us all that as an atheist you have great PURE BLIND FAITH. You have formed an opinion based on nothing but emotional ignorance and barely any research at all . The agnostics and other truth seekers here can now put you in the same category as the west borough church .

I think you may be confusing the position I have taken with others on this thread: the only opinion I have is that "I don't know" other than that it doesn't look like a shroud because the geometry doesn't match being draped over a dead body.

You made the assertion that it would take a huge leap of faith to connect it to Jesus, and this is from your total lack of knowledge and your ignorance of the evidence (historic and scientific). Outhouse would be very proud of you.

Rubbish - this is the pigeon chess equivalent of throwing pieces off the board and claiming victory. And hugely hypocritical coming from someone claiming as historical fact that Jesus is the only person ever to have been crucified in just those set of conditions: if there is historic and scientific evidence, show it. You've done many pages of arguing using unsupported assertions for that link.

My mission here is accomplished as I have exposes the pseudo skeptics not as rational, reasonable and logically people , but as people that have an emotional bias in the shroud who would not allow themselves to look at evidence .

Goodbye, Mr Pigeon. Flap off to **** on someone else's board.

Special thanks also to Phil, ambiguous and outhouse for showing me as a theist how not to research something and how to be dishonest with yourselves

God bless

In your book "how to research something" appears to be "believe anything that matches what I want the result to be and not look at anything else", right?

I don't have time to spend working out or validating the merits of the different "it is"/"it isn't" claims, so I'm not taking a position on authenticity (whatever you might define "authenticity" to be). It takes a very intellectually dishonest sort of debater to turn that into what you've just been describing.

 

[Agnostic75]

Message to bippy123: Why must the shroud be from the first century A.D., and why must it be the shroud of Jesus?

 

[bippy123]

Message to bippy123: Why must the shroud be from the first century A.D., and why must it be the shroud of Jesus?

Agnostic because the evidence fits with this as I have shown.
The match with the mandylion which john Jackson showed with his light raking experiments . The mandylion historically appears in eddessa in the early 500's ad. And we have an account from the legend of king Abgar in which the king asks Jesus to visit him in eddessa (modern day Turkey), because the king has leprosy. Jesus said he can't at this time as he has to stay in Jerusalem because he has a mission to accomplish but would send one of his disciples at a later date.

A disciple was sent at a later date with a cloth that has his image on it and the king is healed of his leprosy. Remember this is a legend. Remember that during the first 300 years the Romans were not only killing Christians but they were also destroying Christian relics to try to wipe away any remnants of Christianity.

I believe that at some point the mandylion was hidden away in the castle of eddessa .If it wasnt from the great flood that happened in eddessa they never would have found the mandylion , which the flood helped to partially dislodge. This is now the early 500's ad. The shroud is then taken out of the side of the castle and put on display for people to see .


The mandylion was folded in a very unique pattern which isn't described in any other ancient documents . The word used to describe this foldimg is tetradiplon.
Physicist John Jackson was curious to see if he could find this fold pattern on the shroud as well, and through his sophisticated light raking process he found the exact folding pattern described for the mandylion, the tetradiplon. And it was was shown that after following the fold patterns found on the shroud, the shroud could be folded to look exactly the way illustration of the mandylion show it to look.

The next is the sudarium of Oviedo . When the sudarium is overlaid on top of the head image of the shroud the blood stains match congruently. In a court of law it takes 25 congruent matches to give a positive match. The shroud and sudarium have 225 congruent matches with each other showing that the sudarium and shroud both covered the same body within very close time intervals, which tells us the shroud is at least as old as the sudarium, and as sudarium experts Marc Guscin and Ian Wilson tell us the sudarium's history is indisputable to the 6th century, and the legend of the sudarium tells us it was hidden away in the cave of saint Marc until an invading Persian army came and it was moved to another country. The sudarium has the same pollens on it from Jerusalem as the shroud , but it also has other pollen found on it that exactly match its historical trial as it was moved ahead of the invading g Persian army.
Sorry I forget the leader of Persia at the time.

Remember that a relic as imortant as this would have been hidden away in the first 300 years of Christianity as Romans destroyed many Christian relics, until Constantine made Christianity legal in 325 ad.

You follow the historical trail and now the forgery theory becomes that much more ridiculous . If modern science can't replicate the image, and medieval science certainly can't , then how can 1st century science or 6th century science do it? Few knowledgable shroud researchers whether atheist, agnostic or Christian believe in the forger theory amd instead , like agnostic art historian Thomas de Wesselow and agnostic chemist ray Rogers are trying to find a natural cause for the image and all have failed so far.

Remember that Rogers vanillin tests dated the main area of the shroud between 1300 and 3000 years old , putting its nag stains vanillin content in line with relics like the Dead Sea scrolls.

This article by Stephen jones puts another major deny into the forger theory as it describes the crown of thorns places on Christ's head by the roman soldiers.
All historical paintings of Christ , especially miedeval times show Christ with a circular crown of thorns , but the shroud shows more of a cap of thorns that covers his whole head. The circular crown is inconsistent with what a crown of thorns from then 1st century. The cap of thorns on the shroud matches exactly with what a 1st century crown was, and that's with a miser shape that covered the whole head. So the shroud crown actually corrects ancient depictions of how the crown of thorns would have looked like.please read the whole article to get the Finer details.

The Shroud of Turin: Tetradiplon and the Shroud of Turin

The case for authenticity is too strong , and the case for forgery is ridiculous for many reasons, and I've named a lot of the reason in my past posts .

 

[bippy123]

Message to bippy123: Why must the shroud be from the first century A.D., and why must it be the shroud of Jesus?

Plus Agnostic75, as I accurately stated before no one in recorded history was crucified in the way that the man on the shroud and the historic Jesus were crucified.

The only reply I got here from the skeptics is from ambiguous who brought out his fredicus bs which was concocted from his imagination and not from historical research

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

The only reply I got here from the skeptics is from ambiguous who brought out his fredicus bs which was concocted from his imagination and not from historical research

Fredicus was crucified exactly as Jesus was claimed to have been crucified.

But, of course, that Jesus BS was concocted from people's imaginations.

Sorry.

 

[bippy123]

Fredicus was crucified exactly as Jesus was claimed to have been crucified.

But, of course, that Jesus BS was concocted from people's imaginations.

Sorry.

And this is why you ambiguousguy would not even be considered part of the lunatic fringe in Christian scholarship. Even the loony Jesus Seminarian would consider you nuts.
According to you, no historical figures existed. Alexander the great to you is a myth because his earliest writings didnt come about until 400 to 500 years after his death.

No atheist new testament scholar believes that Jesus was concocted, But hey, dont let me confuse you with the evidences of True scholars. If you want to believe in the Jesus Myth please feel free to do so. You seem to have GREAT FAITH in being connected to the loonies of scholarship.

 

[outhouse]

More POE

The mandylion historically appears in eddessa in the early 500's ad.

.

Image of Edessa - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This legend was first recorded in the early 4th century by Eusebius of Caesarea,[1] who said that he had transcribed and translated the actual letter in the Syriac chancery documents of the king of Edessa, but

who makes no mention of an image

NO IMAGE

The first version is found in Eusebius' History of the Church (1.13.5-1.13.22).

A disciple was sent at a later date with a cloth that has his image on it

The report of an image, which accrued to the legendarium of Abgar, first appears in the Syriac work, the Doctrine of Addai: according to it, the messenger, here called Ananias, was also a painter, and he painted the portrait

ANANIAS PAINTED IT.

The next stage of development appears in the Doctrine of Addai [Thaddeus], c. 400, which introduces a court painter

 

[Ouroboros]

Fredicus was crucified exactly as Jesus was claimed to have been crucified.

But, of course, that Jesus BS was concocted from people's imaginations.

Sorry.

Or Jesus was modelled after Fredicus. And the shroud belonged to Fredicus too.

 

[philbo]

Alexander the great to you is a myth because his earliest writings didnt come about until 400 to 500 years after his death.

There is a big difference, though: while the contemporary writings about Alexander do not exist any more (one can't help but wonder how many were destroyed when the library in Alexandria was burned), there's a non-trivial body of works which directly reference these primary sources, from three different continents.

Alexander left his mark directly across a huge swathe of the world (including a marked antipathy in Greece for the idea of a reunified Macedonia to this day).

Compare that to Jesus: none of the writings about Jesus are based on things that were written contemporarily. Nobody wrote anything about any of his miracles (even when supposedly witnessed by thousands of people). Everything written comes later, and doesn't cite anything contemporary at all. While he was alive, he didn't even rate a note from any of the Romans around.

There's a bit of a difference.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

And this is why you ambiguousguy would not even be considered part of the lunatic fringe in Christian scholarship. Even the loony Jesus Seminarian would consider you nuts.
According to you, no historical figures existed. Alexander the great to you is a myth because his earliest writings didnt come about until 400 to 500 years after his death.

If you'd like to know my view of Alexander, rather than concocting silly beliefs and claiming they belong to me, you're welcome to ask.

It's what serious debaters/discussers do around here.

No atheist new testament scholar believes that Jesus was concocted, But hey, dont let me confuse you with the evidences of True scholars. If you want to believe in the Jesus Myth please feel free to do so. You seem to have GREAT FAITH in being connected to the loonies of scholarship.

Yo. I seem to have brushed a raw nerve there.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

Or Jesus was modelled after Fredicus. And the shroud belonged to Fredicus too.

The timing is right. Fredicus was a right-hand man to Spartacus, which would make him crucified just prior to Jesus. Maybe Jesus is an amalgam of the hero Spartacus and his man Fredicus, my ancestor?

That would be something to brag about.

 

[Agnostic75]

Message to bippy123: Why must the shroud be from the first century A.D., and why must it be the shroud of Jesus?

Agnostic because the evidence fits with this as I have shown.
The match with the mandylion which John Jackson showed with his light raking experiments. The mandylion historically appears in Edessa in the early 500's ad. And we have an account from the legend of king Abgar in which the king asks Jesus to visit him in eddessa (modern day Turkey), because the king has leprosy. Jesus said he can't at this time as he has to stay in Jerusalem because he has a mission to accomplish but would send one of his disciples at a later date.

But none of that reasonably proves that the Shroud of Turin came from the first century A.D., and none of that reasonably proves that it was Jesus' shroud.

A disciple was sent at a later date with a cloth that has his image on it and the king is healed of his leprosy. Remember this is a legend. Remember that during the first 300 years the Romans were not only killing Christians but they were also destroying Christian relics to try to wipe away any remnants of Christianity.

Same as before.

I believe that at some point the mandylion was hidden away in the castle of Eddessa. If it wasn't from the great flood that happened in Edessa they never would have found the mandylion, which the flood helped to partially dislodge. This is now the early 500's ad. The shroud is then taken out of the side of the castle and put on display for people to see.

Same as before.

The mandylion was folded in a very unique pattern which isn't described in any other ancient documents. The word used to describe this folding is tetradiplon.

What unique pattern that dates only to the first century A.D., and only to Palestine?

Physicist John Jackson was curious to see if he could find this fold pattern on the shroud as well, and through his sophisticated light raking process he found the exact folding pattern described for the mandylion, the tetradiplon. And it was was shown that after following the fold patterns found on the shroud, the shroud could be folded to look exactly the way illustration of the mandylion show it to look.

How does that date the shroud only to the first century A.D., and only to Palestine?

The next is the sudarium of Oviedo . When the sudarium is overlaid on top of the head image of the shroud the blood stains match congruently. In a court of law it takes 25 congruent matches to give a positive match. The shroud and sudarium have 225 congruent matches with each other showing that the sudarium and shroud both covered the same body within very close time intervals, which tells us the shroud is at least as old as the sudarium, and as sudarium experts Marc Guscin and Ian Wilson tell us the sudarium's history is indisputable to the 6th century, and the legend of the sudarium tells us it was hidden away in the cave of saint Marc until an invading Persian army came and it was moved to another country. The sudarium has the same pollens on it from Jerusalem as the shroud , but it also has other pollen found on it that exactly match its historical trial as it was moved ahead of the invading g Persian army.

But none of that reasonably dates the shroud only to the first century A.D., and only to Palestine.

If modern science can't replicate the image, and medieval science certainly can't, then how can 1st century science or 6th century science do it? Few knowledgable shroud researchers whether atheist, agnostic or Christian believe in the forger theory amd instead , like agnostic art historian Thomas de Wesselow and agnostic chemist ray Rogers are trying to find a natural cause for the image and all have failed so far.

Remember that Rogers vanillin tests dated the main area of the shroud between 1300 and 3000 years old, putting its nag stains vanillin content in line with relics like the Dead Sea scrolls.

But none of that reasonably dates the shroud only to the first century A.D., and only to Palestine.

The fact that modern science cannot duplicate the shroud does not reasonably prove that anything supernatural was involved.

I This article by Stephen Jones puts another major deny into the forger theory as it describes the crown of thorns places on Christ's head by the Roman soldiers.

All historical paintings of Christ, especially miedeval times show Christ with a circular crown of thorns, but the shroud shows more of a cap of thorns that covers his whole head. The circular crown is inconsistent with what a crown of thorns from the 1st century. The cap of thorns on the shroud matches exactly with what a 1st century crown was, and that's with a miser shape that covered the whole head. So the shroud crown actually corrects ancient depictions of how the crown of thorns would have looked like.

But none of that reasonably proves that the shroud came only from the first century A.D., and only from Palestine.

If your evidence is valid, why hasn't the Vatican accepted it?

 

[Agnostic75]

This article by Stephen jones puts another major deny into the forger theory as it describes the crown of thorns places on Christ's head by the roman soldiers.

All historical paintings of Christ, especially miedeval times show Christ with a circular crown of thorns, but the shroud shows more of a cap of thorns that covers his whole head. The circular crown is inconsistent with what a crown of thorns from then 1st century. The cap of thorns on the shroud matches exactly with what a 1st century crown was, and that's with a miser shape that covered the whole head. So the shroud crown actually corrects ancient depictions of how the crown of thorns would have looked like.

But that does not reasonably prove that the shroud is Jesus' shroud.

 

[thau]

To Bippy,

Two things.

1) I don't find your name very inviting.

2) I am very grateful for all of the due diligence you have put forth with respect to the truth and facts about the Shroud of Turin. Fantastic! Thank you.

It is my personal opinion that if what you have given and what you have linked to is not enough to convince a non-partisan viewer about the very truth about this burial cloth (of Jesus Christ!), then they are simply not interested in knowing the truth. And that is a sad reality.

 

[philbo]

It is my personal opinion that if what you have given and what you have linked to is not enough to convince a non-partisan viewer about the very truth about this burial cloth (of Jesus Christ!), then they are simply not interested in knowing the truth. And that is a sad reality.

What in the links given made you believe that it is the burial cloth of Jesus Christ? I didn't see anything that could be called "truth" which proved it was a shroud, let alone that specific one.